Please define "selling out" for me
May 18, 2007 at 7:48 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 30

MetalManCPA

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Posts
598
Likes
14
After reading the thread regarding Linkin Parks new album (CD), I see a term I find grossly overused and undefined - "selling out". My comments here are in general, not about any specific band. Metallica "sold out", Bob Dylan "sold" out, as so amny other artists have been accused of doing.

As defined in Wikipedia: "Selling out is a common slang phrase. Broadly speaking, it refers to the compromising of one's integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, success or other personal gain. It is commonly associated with attempts to increase mass appeal or acceptability to mainstream society. A person who does this is labeled a sellout. Selling out may be seen as gaining success at the cost of credibility. Though generally associated with the entertainment industry, regular individuals who similarly compromise their ideals (e.g. a Bohemian individual who suddenly switches to a socially conservative lifestyle) could also be considered sellouts."

The accusations of Metallica selling out infuriated me (metal is my genre of choice). I always argued with people regarding Metallica. People said the cause of their fame was "selling out". To me, it was a different musical direction for them, and that people seem to want their band to stay the same. So you don't like the new sound of a band you always liked. Oh well, move on then. How can anybody expect an artist to sound the same throoughout their career? Sure, some do, but others decide to try something new/different.

Artistic impression in music comes in many forms. There is the rash of performance artists in the pop world. Many of these artists don't write their own music - they perform other peoples music. Many artists write/perform their own music.

In most interviews I've cared to read (which isn't all that many), I never hear an artists say they sold out. They may have been misdirected by people in what direction they should head in. Maybe they didn't hold true to the original music that got them to where they were before they "changed". Yet these musical artists still put out albums, and it's up to the general public if they like it or not. I personally dislike most pop music, and I personally believe the musical talent of the artists (guitar, drum, etc) of my particular metal likings talent-wise blow away most artists in the pop world. They just choose to play a style of music that isn't widely accepted. In Linkin Parks case, did they need to "sell out"? They were popular already.

I never believed in the "selling out" theory, never.
 
May 18, 2007 at 7:53 PM Post #2 of 30
hmmm, i guess your view on this is refreshing. i too was a metallica fan back in my young days. i had all albums up until and including black album. they were great, but as you said (between the lines) they were all the same sounding.

eventually, i made my way to rock and then on to tech-rock, glam rock, techno and eventually trance. if a msuic or group does not evolve, things get stale quickly. u2 reformed their sound every album from the first until pop and then they went what i would call mainstream - heavy coldplay type of melodies and lyrics that could not make anyone upset.

for me, that was selling out - going the way the fans wanted. fans wanted them to become the 'old u2' again meaning joshua tree - but without looking at their excellent performance and variety given from every album. their popularity i think never waned really - just their mentality of pleasing people first and themselves last. selling out though is probably not a good term.

thanks for the little write up.
 
May 18, 2007 at 7:53 PM Post #3 of 30
Prior to reading your post with its wiki definition, I would have surmised it in general terms as an artist making records for the record company, rather then for themself or their fans.
 
May 18, 2007 at 7:59 PM Post #5 of 30
One addition to my thoughts: somebody writes the music (performing artist or a writer) and somebody plays/records the music. It's still music. Bands/people change. If you choose to believe in the "selling out" theory and feel an artist chases something, isn't that still a musical direction for the artist?
 
May 18, 2007 at 8:25 PM Post #6 of 30
Quote:

Originally Posted by MetalManCPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif
One addition to my thoughts: somebody writes the music (performing artist or a writer) and somebody plays/records the music. It's still music. Bands/people change. If you choose to believe in the "selling out" theory and feel an artist chases something, isn't that still a musical direction for the artist?


It can be. To me it becomes selling out when I know they did it because they wanted radio/MTV/youtube play and to be more popular, or because the label and/or producer told them they had to change it to whatever stupid "Hit-making" formula they had that day. The first thing isn't so bad. As a typical struggling musician, i have to change what i write really often, because i want to make money or just because it feels good to have people like your music.

There are also tons of times where the artist does something for themselves because they have a new idea or just want to do something different because they feel like they're repeating themselves. Sometimes old fans like it, sometimes they don't, but selling out is used mostly to make people feel like their old favorites haven't changed, they've just been bought. That way they can either be angry at their old band, or ignore the fact that they are closed-minded in music choices.

So yeah, saying someone sold out means they used to play music you liked and now they don't and you're mad. You've got the right idea about it: there is no selling out.

And by the way, whatever you think about Linkin Park's music (I think it sucks big floppy donkey testicles), they are the furthest from sellouts in the music business ever. They had a sound that got picked up (rap-metal) and turned into a formula by every record label that didn't have they're own linkin park sound-alike. Then that lost popularity, and they're still doing it because they like the sound, no matter what old fans who've moved on will say. I'd guess that they won't make much money on this album because of how delayed it's been and how much advertising is going into it, but I bet they're having a good time playing anyway.
 
May 18, 2007 at 8:50 PM Post #7 of 30
I've always thought selling out was when a band, in this case, makes a huge change in their style of music suddenly and with no other purpose than to make money. I think Metallica gets alot of flak for it because one album they were Metallica, and the next they were everyone else, so I think the "sell-out" label is not completely undeserved in their case.
 
May 18, 2007 at 9:05 PM Post #8 of 30
For a history lesson, please refer to your friendly neighbourhood mod contingency:

B000002OX5.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
 
May 19, 2007 at 2:00 AM Post #10 of 30
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Prior to reading your post with its wiki definition, I would have surmised it in general terms as an artist making records for the record company, rather then for themself or their fans.


Regardless of one's definition, everyone can be sure that Günther will NEVER sell out.
icon10.gif
 
May 19, 2007 at 2:05 AM Post #11 of 30
Most bands said to have sold out have not. Usually, "selling out" comes from two things, from my observations:
1. They're comfortable, and need adversity to push their minds properly.
2. They're damned burned out. Even as cheesy as they were, look at how depressed Jani Lane is even talking about Cherry Pie.
3. Their "fans" are being stripped of their innocence.

#1 probably accounts for Linkin Park's not doing so great here, if you like them. The problem with real sellouts is that most of them sold out to begin with.

For #1, though, Melissa Etheridge come to mind most to me. ME's s/t is still one of the most passionate studio recordings I've ever heard. Brave and Crazy wasn't shabby. Never Enough wasn't bad, but a bit too much pop. As of Yes I Am...just saccharin pop-friendly and soulless crap. I have no ill will towards her, but it was her pent up feelings before becoming such a star that made her music good. I imagine Metallica's in the same boat. It just doesn't have as good a feel.

For #3, a recent example may be Avril Lavigne accused of being a sellout now...no, sorry, it was just that you were tasteless and naive the first time around. When did this wretch who just happens to be cute ever have a shred of integrity or passion to start with? This is of course the case with the majority of pop acts.

Now, also, to get on the last paragraphs in the OP, many performance artists that are good manage to keep their egos in check insofar as the part of creating what they perform. How do you "sell out" when your whole purpose has simply been to entertain people, with little to no artistic pretenses? Possibly the epitome of this would be Kylie Minogue. There is no pretense of musicianship. She has a decent voice, and her purpose is to put on a show.

So yes, in general it's a knee-jerk reaction to keep in one's comfort zone.
 
May 19, 2007 at 2:09 AM Post #12 of 30
I'm pretty sure whatever angry teenager I had left in me the day I heard St. Anger.

You can accuse Metallica of selling out at the black album or blame it on Burton's death and the shift in songwriting... but to me, the travesty that is St. Anger looks like a deliberate attempt to scrape Top 40 radio by trying to emulate some successful bands (at the time).

Also, Lars Ulrich putting the kabosh on Napster earns them a lot of bad blood from me as well. Arguing over what amounts to less than another 0 on an already enormous paycheck and in the same breath it's still about "the music" really never jived with me.
 
May 19, 2007 at 2:14 AM Post #13 of 30
To me, the biggest example of a band that "sold out" was Motley Crue in the mid 80's. They were at first this dark edge band that rocked. Later, they released the "Theatre of Pain" album and went glam with a touch of pink spandax. After that, they released this silly comedy "Girls Girls Girls" album. I was outraged and went into the death metal scene.

Also, I don't think Metallica sold out. Maybe they're running out of ideas but not sure since I rarely listen to heavy music these days. So don't take my opinion of Metallica seriously.
 
May 19, 2007 at 3:43 AM Post #14 of 30
To me selling out can be hard to judge. I completely discount claims that signing to a major label is an automatic sell out. Bad Religion had a stint on Atlantic records and they wrote some of their best stuff - at least lyrically - during that period.

Even drastic style changes can be hard to denounce. Red Hot Chili Peppers are one of my favourite examples in this regard. If one were to follow their career, it would certainly seem that they had softened up over the years, playing to their successes as a pop band, leaving their roots in the dust. On initial examination, this could certainly be construed as such, but I don't think so. With a body of work spanning more than 20 years, addictions, even a death; At some point one has to recognize that the human beings who make the music develop and change as people over the years and, in fact, herein lies the point:

It seems to me that quite often, people will treat progression or direction changes in a band's work as a sign of some insidious manipulation. As though the hollow shells making the music smile and nod while the golden carrot wags just out of reach. I've noticed a frequent correlation between the term "sell out" and the individual's personal feelings about the new album. Conversely - and not surprisingly, if the person enjoys the new album, those accusations don't get uttered.

Basically, what you see isn't always what you get. I think Duggeh posted a very nice and concise definition of what selling out is... the challenge is unearthing the true intentions of the directions a band takes through their career.

Now, just as a rabble rouse, do we have any AFI fans in here? I never liked them, but a number of my friends have been following them since their early East Bay Hardcore days and I would be interested to hear what you think of the Emo-glam schlock rock they (Davey Havoc) seem to be so insistent upon playing... ironically and despite my earlier comment - since signing to a major label.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top